brutespray
v2.7.2 open-sourceThe section your link pointed to isn't on brutespray's page any more, so we've brought you to the top.
Fast, multi-protocol credential brute-forcer. Parses Nmap, Nessus, and Nexpose output to automatically test default and custom credentials across 30+ protocols.
brutespray -f nmap.gnmap --dry-run --plan-out engagement-plan.json brutespray -f nmap.gnmap --require-plan-ack <plan-hash> lockout_threshold: 5 lockout_window: 30m safe_margin: 1 jitter_percent: 10 evidence: mode: hash hmac_key: "<your-hmac-key>" brutespray -f targets.gnmap --debug-audit --debug-file audit.jsonl -u users.txt -p passwords.txt brutespray -f targets.gnmap --route-diagnostics -u admin -p password brutespray -f targets.gnmap --schedule host-major --skip-policy aggressive --max-conn-fails 3 -u users.txt -p passwords.txt brutespray -f nmap.gnmap --skip-policy aggressive --max-conn-fails 3 -u admin -p passlist.txt brutespray -f nmap.gnmap -u root -p passlist.txt --debug-audit --debug-file audit.jsonl brutespray --module-help rdp masscan -p22 10.0.0.0/24 -oJ - | brutespray --badkeys-only naabu -p 5984,9200,8086 -host 10.0.0.0/24 | fingerprintx | brutespray -c 'admin:admin,root:changeme,elastic:' brutespray -file nmap.xml -service ssh -delay 10s brutespray -f hosts.gnmap -s ssh -U users.txt -m key:true -p /path/to/id_rsa brutespray -f hosts.gnmap -s http-form -U users.txt -P passwords.txt -m csrf:csrf_token -m url:/login -m userfield:username -m passfield:password brutespray -f hosts.gnmap -s ssh -U users.txt -P passwords.txt --proxy-list proxies.txt brutespray --resume session.jsonl brutespray -f targets.xml -spray -spray-delay 2s -resume brutespray -f targets.xml -summary -rate 5 --no-tui brutespray -f nmap.xml -s ssh -U users.txt -W passwords.txt --no-color | tee brutespray.log brutespray -f nmap_output.txt -P brutespray -f hosts.txt -s xmpp,oracle_db,teamspeak
Summary
brutespray is an open-source, free command-line tool that takes scan output from Nmap, Nessus, Nexpose, or JSON and brute-forces credentials against discovered services across 41 protocols in parallel. It runs as a Go binary with an interactive terminal UI, embedded wordlists, and resume/checkpoint support, and it fits naturally into recon pipelines, accepting piped input from tools like naabu or fingerprintx. It's built for penetration testers and red teamers who need to move from a network scan straight to credential validation, with lockout-aware spray modes and SOCKS5SOCKS5A proxy protocol that relays TCP and UDP traffic through an intermediary server without inspecting it, letting cyber tools tunnel connections through firewalls or pivot hosts with minimal overhead. proxy support for engagement-safe pacing. It sits in the password-cracking category alongside tools like Hydra and Medusa, but centers on parsing scanner output rather than raw target lists. Started in 2017, it remains actively developed, with 215 commits and 21 releases in the past year and a release just 54 days ago.
Fast, multi-protocol credential brute-forcer. Parses Nmap, Nessus, and Nexpose output to automatically test default and custom credentials across 30+ protocols.
How brutespray helps
Which credentials actually work on the services this scan just found?
reads the Nmap, Nessus, Nexpose, JSON, or list output and runs matching protocol modules with the given user/password sources in parallel, reporting which host/service pairs authenticated successfully
Which of my SSH hosts are still sitting on known-bad or vendor default keys?
checks each host against an embedded corpus of known-bad keys before any password spraying, flagging matches with CVE-tagged metadata so exposure shows up without a single guessed password
Am I about to lock accounts out by spraying too aggressively?
offers a lockout-aware spray mode with configurable delay between attempts so a slow, deliberate pace can be set instead of hammering every credential at once
Which of my Windows RDP hosts are exposed to the Sticky-Keys backdoor?
performs pre-authentication RDP reconnaissance that fingerprints whether network-level authentication is enforced and checks for the sticky-keys backdoor pattern without needing valid credentials first
Did a run stall out on dead hosts instead of finishing the live ones?
lets the queue order prioritize responsive hosts and skip services after repeated connection failures, so a scan doesn't dwell on unreachable targets while live ones wait
Can I pick a spray back up after stopping it midway through a large target list?
checkpoints progress per host and resumes from where it left off, using a count-based cursor to skip credential pairs already attempted on partially completed hosts
Languages
Command line
No command matches.
| option | found in | since | description |
|---|
Values are placeholders taken from each option’s declared default. Nothing is executed here — the output shown is a recording of a run that already happened.
Score card
-
Shipping velocity releases a month, last 12 months
-
Documentation quality release-notes rubric, 0–100
-
Breaking-change discipline how rarely a release breaks users, and notice given
-
Maintenance risk quiet time against its own cadence, maintainers
-
Innovation & surface new capabilities, API and MCP surface
- Community health
-
Contributor trend distinct committers, this year against last
-
Maintainer concentration bus factor now against a year ago
-
Issue backlog trend issues closed per issue opened, 12 months
-
Responsiveness median time to a maintainer’s first reply
Nine scores for brutespray, each built from the releases, notes and API history this site tracks — and, on Researcher and Business, where it stands among every measured tool in its category and how that has moved.
Score cards are part of every paid plan.
See plans → Already subscribed? Sign in →Trajectory
Blank means never measured; nothing here is a filled-in zero.
Peer standings are included with Researcher and Business. See how this tool ranks against its competitors, using data we don't publish anywhere else.
See plans →Each score is 0–100 on a published rubric, derived from data this site already shows. A dimension we cannot measure says so — it is never scored 0 and never enters a rank.
How this is scored
- Shipping velocity — releases a month over the last 12 months, on a log scale where 16 a month scores 100. Needs 3 releases in the window.
- Documentation quality — the release-notes rubric published on the analytics page, unchanged.
- Breaking-change discipline — the share of releases carrying a breaking change (none scores 100, half or more scores 0). Only projects that label breaking changes are measured: a clean record cannot be told from an unlabelled one.
- Maintenance risk — quiet time measured against the tool's own release cadence (quiet longer than 90 days and three typical gaps scores 0), plus the number of active maintainers and whether contributors are growing, where known. Higher is lower risk.
- Innovation & surface — new capabilities in the feature ledger this year, API and MCP operations added, and the share of commits that are features: the mean of whichever we hold.
- Community health (open-source tools only) — each is a direction, not a size: contributors this year against last, the bus factor now against a year ago, and issues closed per issue opened, where steady scores 50, doubled 100 and halved 0; plus the median time to a maintainer's first reply (an hour scores about 100, a month or more 0). A commercial card has no repository and carries none of the four.
- Documented delivery (commercial tools) — when a vendor's documented new capabilities have slowed against its own baseline, that counts against the overall standing as heavily as two low dimensions. Steady delivery, or too little history to judge, leaves the standing alone; it is never a sixth score.
- Open-source tools are scored on repository signals; commercial tools on their published changelog. Ranks compare tools within one category and one profile and need at least five measured peers; the overall standing needs three ranked dimensions. Best-in-breed or consolidator is a shape, not a quality, and is never scored.
Release-note detail over time
See how much detail brutespray puts in its release notes, quarter by quarter, and compare it with tracked tools in the same category. This history uses up to ten retained, reviewed notes per tool; sparse or blank older quarters may reflect that limit.
Checking release-note history…
Releases
12 entries
No entries match these filters.
- August 20261
- June 20262
- May 20262
- March 20263
- February 20261
- August 20251
- January 20251
- February 20241
Project health
Issue, contributor and maintainer activity in x90skysn3k/brutespray, 2023-10 – 2026-09, as of 2026-09-25. Twelve-month figures first; the trend lines run the whole window.
- Contributors 2 −2 vs prior 12 months
- Maintainers 1 +0 joined · −0 left, last 12 months
- Bus factor 1 committers behind half the commits
- Community-filed 100% of issues opened, last 12 months
- Median time to close < 1 day first maintainer reply 11 hours
- Open backlog 9 of 62 issues ever filed
- Issues opened / month 0 · 0 communitymaintainers
- Open backlog 9
- Contributors / month 1
- Commits / month 1
- Stars 2,535
- other 100%
Counts from the project's public repository and git history; no individuals are identified. Maintainers are the committers covering 80% of the last year's commits. how we measure this
Libraries its release ships
What its latest release locks, checked against known advisories.None of its release's images build from a lockfile we can read.
Add the badge to your README
Maintain this project? The badge links readers straight to this page, so they can follow every release here.